Just think. In 1901, Booker T. Washington became the first black American to dine at the White House with a president. Sadly, a decent cross-section of citizens were beside themselves upon hearing the news. "What is the world coming to?" mainstream society-types pondered.

A little more than a century later, the son of a black Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother has effectively won the Democratic Party's nomination for president.

Because of the incessant chatter required to keep 24-hour cable news channels operating, everyone will get very tired of hearing the words "history," "history-making" and "historical" in the descriptions of freshman U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's circumstances. That's an unfortunate side effect of nonstop news coverage, but repetition should not be permitted to diminish the importance of this moment in the, yes, history of the nation.

Regardless of whether Obama becomes president - there's plenty of time to discuss that after the results are known - the fact that this young, black man is so close to presidential possibilities demonstrates the strides made in the United States toward a better, more colorblind society. Who knows whether Obama will glide to victory or get beaten later this year by longtime U.S. Sen. John McCain - the Republican Party's last, best hope to avoid a wipeout this election season? We know this: The campaign for president is going to be an incredible contest to watch.

Of course, 2008 has never been any ordinary campaign season, so Obama can't be too surprised that so much of the talk following his apparent clinching of the nomination has centered on the future of Hillary Clinton, his arch rival. Chief among the rumors is the guessing game about whether the former first lady and junior senator from New York will eventually emerge from their epic primary fight as Obama's vice presidential running mate - or whether, among other things, the acrimony between the two candidates and their associates will simply be too much to overcome. We wonder.

For Obama, the disadvantages to picking Hillary as his No. 2 seem obvious. Not only would he have to keep an eye on a person who would do virtually anything to be president, his staff would also have to find a way to keep former president Bill Clinton on message - something Hillary failed to do time and again in recent months. If Hillary couldn't keep the two-term president from becoming a liability (at least, that is, in the media's eyes), then how might Obama hope to accomplish the same thing?

One also wonders whether the Clintons, as the biggest names in Democratic politics for 16 years, would overshadow Obama's presidency. Although most of Obama's supporters are probably not willing to go as far as former President Jimmy Carter (who recently told the Guardian tapping Clinton "would be the worst mistake that could be made"), many believe making a clean break from the past (especially from the Clintons) is in the country's best interest. Moving in the opposite direction could leave voters who chose to support Obama in spite of Clinton at home come the day of the general election - a fate liberals who want to win want to avoid.

Even if the formation of this supposed "dream ticket" is not practical, that doesn't make it any easier to avoid thinking about. In a year when it's amazing a Republican even stands a chance to retain the Oval Office and the Democrats have been bitterly divided, an Obama/Clinton ticket may be just what Democrats need to marshal the fractured forces toward victory.

While many women across the land may be heartbroken over Hillary's defeat, she could still go down in history as the nation's first female vice president - which is nothing to sneeze at.

It's worth remembering that Clinton won party primaries in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and California - states Obama must win come fall. Perhaps most importantly, Obama would gain access to all those donors who previously had been supporting Hillary's efforts.

Maybe we're the only ones, but we can't help thinking a "dream ticket" could prove unbeatable.